From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-18024-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 18215 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2002 21:57:42 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 18207 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2002 21:57:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Aug 2002 21:57:41 -0000
Received: from toenail.toronto.redhat.com (toenail.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.211])
	by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 826AFB8035; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 17:57:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from fche@localhost)
	by toenail.toronto.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7NLvev11512;
	Fri, 23 Aug 2002 17:57:40 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: toenail.toronto.redhat.com: fche set sender to fche@redhat.com using -f
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfc/rfa:doco]  Revised Z packet spec
References: <3D669A90.50401@ges.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler)
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:02:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <3D669A90.50401@ges.redhat.com>
Message-ID: <o5bs7tb5m4.fsf@toenail.toronto.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00774.txt.bz2


cagney wrote:

> [...]
>  	* gdb.texinfo (Packets): Revise `z' and `Z' packet documentation.
>  	(Packets): Add cross reference from `b' packet to `z' packets.

> ! [...] To avoid potential problems with duplicate packets, the
> ! operations should be implemented in an idempotent way.

What's the intent of this?  To what extent do you think these packets
need to be any differently idempotent from all the others?


> ! Insert (@code{Z0}) or remove (@code{z0}) a memory breakpoint at address
> ! @code{addr} of size @code{length}.
> ! [...]
> ! @emph{Implementation note: It is possible for a target to copy or move
> ! code that contains memory breakpoints (e.g., when implementing
> ! overlays).  The behavior of this packet, in the presence of such a
> ! target, is not defined.}

Does this imply a promise by gdb that it will not make undefined
protocol calls?


- FChE